To review: [Manhattan DA Alvin] Bragg calls out five provisions of criminal law.
Two of the provisions cover only gun crimes.
The third covers only “deadly weapons,” like knives (not pork chops).
The fourth covers only the actual use or immediate threat with a dangerous instrument.
The fifth covers only the actual use of physical force, not the threat of physical force.
Then, Bragg told his lawyers not to prosecute these crimes.
Instead, suspects “should be charged under “155.25,” which is misdemeanor larceny.
In short: If you hold a gun to a clerk’s face and ask them to empty the cash register, it’s a misdemeanor, with a theoretical year in prison, but, in practice, no real punishment.
What aren’t [Police Commissioner Keechant] Sewell, [Partnership for New York City chief Kathy] Wylde and the rest of us understanding?
After winning last June’s primary election, Bragg had six months to prepare this thing — and ask friends, foes, legal advisers, and PR experts to give him confidential feedback. “You know, Alvin,” they would likely have said, “people are going to interpret this is a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ on all armed robberies where someone isn’t actually shot or killed, because that is exactly what it says.”
No, Bragg screwed up another way: he expected to bask in accolades for his noble progressive intentions.
Instead, even the Rev. Al Sharpton wanted assurance that armed gun robbers would still face felony charges.
Sometimes, the law is an ass. Other times . . .
— Nicole Gelinas in Let’s break down exactly what Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s memo says
Another “I misspoke”, or “you’re all to dumb to understand”??
Former NY Governor Cuomo out…a worse one ushered in.
Former NYC Mayor DeBlasio out…a worse one ushered in.
Former Manhattan D.A. out…a worse one ushered in.
Sounds to me like New York isn’t going to come out of the downward spiral any time soon.
This “spiral” in NYC and other progressive-run metro areas will continue as long as there are power-mad candidates, who want to control the masses, running for office and there are large numbers of people who want to be taken care of who will happily vote for them.
You’d be wise to remember that this big talking, no action candy ass has freely admitted he’ll hide in his home when the SHTF. He implied he served in the military. He didn’t. He implied he has a mysterious past during which he ‘did some things he’s proud of, but can’t talk about’. Not true. He stated he’d lead the charge on 1/6, then begged out last minute due to, I kid you not, COVID. What a 🤡 and loser this ‘man’ is…
oops, it’s unbelive….
thanks for sharing
پی اس 2021
Progressive ideology is akin to a mental disorder. Their policies are illogical and indefensible. All they do is yell racism and change the subject. They actually love the idea of racism. They’re powerless without it.
It’s odd to me that a baker who declines to make a cake for a gay wedding would be hung up in court battles forever.
A guy who robs a baker at gunpoint goes free.
Also, if Al Sharpton is the moral benchmark in the above story, then everything is backwards.
Priorities. The baker has to pay for the crime of having the wrong views. The robber only robs because people like the baker exists. They’re taking up for the criminals because the criminals are their people. They wouldn’t want felons to vote if they voted for their opponents.
It isn’t that things are backwards. It’s just that things are escalating. Sharpton almost seems quaint compared to the people replacing him.
That’s right/left. When cornered The democRat Party points fingers and screams racism. And placid and proper so called Republicans rarely cease the opportunity to inform the listening audience that it is the democRat Party that owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics, Gun Control and other race based atrocities. And that the democRat Party has never taken Responsibility for it all much less offered a dime of Reparations from their party coffers.
Same thing applies to Gun Control. So called Republicans shun the diabolical history of Gun Control and instead chose to give Gun Control standing by keeping its history of rot hidden in the closet. Reminds me of cowardly neighbors who hear a woman getting beaten next door and they shut the blinds and turn out the lights. If the aforementioned scenario rings a bell with anyone reading this it is intended to do so.
“Progressive ideology is akin to a mental disorder. Their policies are illogical and indefensible.”
They will just say : “But they meant well!”
A world where ‘feelings’ matter more than reality… 🙁
The road to hell is paved by people that meant well, or something like that.
The road to Hell is being repaved by the Left – – – with a layer of Teflon.
Dude,
Progressive ideology has three hallmarks:
1) Progressive “tribe” cohesion over everything.
2) Progressive intense feelings over everything.
3) Everything which supports the supremacy of Progressive “tribe” cohesion and intense feelings is permissible. Everything which reduces (or threatens to reduce) the supremacy of Progressive “tribe” cohesion and intense feelings is subject to destruction by any means necessary.
Once you understand those three hallmarks of the Progressive “tribe”, everything makes perfect sense. And you realize that Progressivism is not so much a mental disorder as a passion-driven mindset which operates outside of truth, standards, and restraints.
“And you realize that Progressivism is not so much a mental disorder as a passion-driven mindset which operates outside of truth, standards, and restraints.”
It’s an illegitimate religion. It has all the hallmarks of religious zealotry.
What we must do is refuse to recognize their religion, the same way they refuse to recognize Christianity…
If we recognized their religion the way they recognize Christianity, we’d be doing our level best to poison and destroy it, both from within and from without. It’s long past time we did.
In before all the “fact checkers” use this half-assed, after the fact, verse to state with absolute certainty everything he stated in his memo is “false.” Then, in a few months, when he acts exactly how his memo stated he would the “fact checkers” will amend their “false” to “lacks context” and the Orwellian destruction of language and logic continue carried on the shoulders of partisan useful idiots.
Your post was a destruction of the language and logic……..
And yet perfectly intelligible with multiple real world examples in other areas to support the concept. Now your attempt at gaslighting……….
The goal here is pretty damned obvious if you’re paying even a modicum of attention. It’s a power-grab.
These people want to set things up in such a way that they end up with a terrible crime problem so that people beg them to come back in with a heavy hand.
You then re-fund the police and change the hiring preferences/rules and you’ve got a Stasi/Cheka style system that people are willing to put up with to make the current set of problems “go away”.
Determine the solution you want -> create problem -> scare public with problem you created -> offer pre-determined solution -> consolidate power.
Standard. The teachers’ unions have been doing it for decades. Government has done it with terrorism and drugs as well. Historically it’s a fairly common way to take over.
So much the better if the problem you create has a grain of truth to it and plays on preexisting wants and fears.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
― Rahm Emanuel
When you can’t find a crisis, make one.
“change the hiring preferences/rules”
Don’t forget the purge of the purebloods, also known as those without the “correct” views.
Speaking of their solutions, I’ve seen a ton of articles in the past year plus calling for more social worker funding. Every solution always involves expanding the government, spending more money, and imposing more taxes.
Don’t forget the purge of the purebloods, also known as those without the “correct” views.
While I’m not necessarily a fan of the language here you are quite correct in your overarching thesis that certain actions point towards a “unapproved” way of thinking which can get a person pigeonholed as undesirable in the hiring process. And you are also exactly right about one of the methods currently being employed to do this.
That leads back to a whole other discussion about technical knowledge, the public’s general lack of this knowledge and how this is used against people with flat out lies.
The example I’d use, since you kinda picked the topic, is the mRNA jabs not staying at the injection site. Anyone who’s taken a introductory genetics course at the college level in the past ~10 years knew this was a lie right off the bat. Lipid micelles won’t stay in that location because they were specifically designed not to. They were always meant to flood the body and it was known that they would be preferentially uptaken by cells that use get the majority of their energy from fats.
The repurposing of such micelles for the current set of publicly known uses was quite obviously problematic from the jump if you knew what the micelles were actually for. Their purpose was to get around issues in the realm of gene therapy that are known to arise from the use of AdV-vectored therapies which are known to have an undesirable side-effect profile in terms of immune response and certain serological issues that are not completely understood. Literally everyone who’s been through introductory genetics knows this. It’s an entire section in the last 1/3rd of a competent introductory genetics course.
Now, that doesn’t make any of the conspiracy theories that current stuff a gene therapy true, it’s more of a gene-product therapy but that’s not the point. The point is that college freshman in a modern biology department heard the statements that this stuff stayed at the injection site and immediately knew the statement was bullshit. But that’s what percentage of the US population? Maybe 2-3%? So that was an easy group of people to cancel and silence.
You see the same thing in law, economics, trade, finance etc. It’s all related to the same thing as how expensive an electrician has become with his “specialized knowledge” that most people had 60 years back. It’s not really that hard, it’s just not common knowledge.
“…certain actions point towards a “unapproved” way of thinking which can get a person pigeonholed as undesirable in the hiring process.”
Oh, yes, since HR departments search applicants social media accounts.
That does give us an angle to attack them via discrimination lawsuits…
““You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
― Rahm Emanuel”
And they laid it out, for all to see.
I wonder how much this reflects the going-ons in Germany in the 1930s.
There were a lot of good people there too terrified of the mob to say “Hey, this isn’t right.” They see neighbor Hans being loaded into an SS staff car and saying to themselves “Phew, glad it wasn’t me. But this can’t possibly get much worse.”
And the internet makes for a dandy mob, eager to pounce with just a whistle.
The issue with the internet is the basic lie it tells.
That lie is that “the majority believe”. They don’t. Most of the “big” fights on the internet are a tiny minority lashing out at another tiny minority but with eyes drawn to that fight because it’s promoted by various sources.
The whole Boomer/Millennial thing is like this. 5% of each generation, max, are involved. But you wouldn’t know that to watch the web.
Odd to think how an idiotic Reddit post from a bit over a decade ago can be combined with a dancing tart making dumbass videos with autotune on TikTok and set millions of people against each other.
As a friend of mine is want to say “You gotta be dumb”.
strych9,
I agree on all points. We are on the same wavelength.
I have been racking my brain trying to figure out if/how we could inform the populace and “turn the ship around” before it is too late. Sadly, I have yet to find a solution.
The solution is the one I realized back in high school. It’s like dealing with an alcoholic. There’s no real point in an intervention until they get close to, or actually hit, rock bottom.
Well that’s happening as I type this across a bunch of fronts. (Dat CPI print! Ooof!). You can see it with the school board stuff, for example. FJB isn’t catching on for no reason. People have a sense that when you get certain behaviors it can’t be by accident. Having a set of policies that are not uniformly “good” is to be expected but when you get the exact inverse of good on everything that’s by design.
And that leads to two major points IMHO.
The first is that you better figure out how to elucidate a solution to the average normie, sharpish. This is what I’ve been talking about here for YEARS. Education is a manipulation. When it’s for the benefit of the recipient we call it “education”, when it’s for the benefit of the manipulator we have other terms for this behavior. Freedom minded people need to figure this the fuck out and quickly.
Secondly you need to figure out WHAT it is that you’re going to elucidate. There’s a reason I talk about digital currencies like FedCoin and the use of jab-passports all the fucking time. These things provide a level of control most people cannot imagine. But they better figure it out before these things get deployed. I can’t count the number of older people I personally know who don’t get it and think that guns and gold are going to save them. LOL! Nope, sorry, if you can’t see why then… well, you’re begging to get screwed because, fundamentally, you have no idea what this tech is capable of. Because they are unaware of the capacity they do not want to believe that anyone is dedicated to the deployment of the tech, yet .gov tells you that they are in fact dedicated to this deployment all the time. It’s somewhat fascinating the way people deny it.
And that sucks that people don’t see it. But once they do the lightbulb comes on and they start to see this all over the place. As I’ve said quite a few times, I can’t do your homework for you. But once you see this you cannot unsee it. You may become disturbed at how prevalent it is but you will also become both resistant and able to fight it.
“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” comes to mind. But once you see it then you see it.
strych9,
Expanding on my above comment (trying to find a way to inform the populace and “turn the ship around”), I am starting to wonder if the key lies in the confirmation bias of the populace–their bias being that they are reasonably decent people and therefore assume that almost everyone else (especially government and large corporations) is also reasonably decent. That being the case, the populace would subconsciously reject nefarious motives on a grand scale. (The populace would, by default, assume that there are painful steps on the road to some noble outcome or that destructive policies were accidental.)
Is our first priority to inform the populace of the magnitude of the truly evil potential of the Ruling Class? Once that happens, we can then prod the populace to be far more critical and demand far more from the Ruling Class. Yes?
A winning game plan is below in a reply to Rokurota. It’s the only way I see a change in our trajectory. We already have enough people to change certain states and control national policy. Those people are wasting their votes behind enemy lines. It would be a losing fight to try to change minds at this point. Social media and the censors really compounded that problem. It wouldn’t be a fair fight.
If you’re referring to the concept of a “tactical retreat” in terms of people physically moving to another state or out of a city I would urge caution in the use of such a strategy.
Creating a new Mason-Dixon line, just like the first time, may be necessary but it should be very carefully considered in terms of downside first because we kinda see where that went, don’t we?
“Is our first priority to inform the populace of the magnitude of the truly evil potential of the Ruling Class?”
IMHO, no. That comes a bit further down the road. The reason being that first you have to have a plan as to how you’d inform people, which IMO is the key to the entire thing. The tip of the wedge matters A LOT.
As I’ve said here repeatedly, once you see this kind of thing you can’t unsee it. The seeing is linked to issues of decentralization which is what human rights, fundamentally, are. A decentralization of authority and responsibility. There are ethical reasons for that but there are also practical ones. Which are more convincing depends on the person you talk to.
The issue that you run into is getting people to recognize this sort of thing at base. Sort of the concept behind the movie Inception. You need to convince people that they came up with the idea themselves because otherwise they’re resistant to it. This is one of the reasons I relate things to sports or media in many cases, I certainly am not using those references because I’m a fan of team sports or Hollywood.
People are resistant to it because emotionally they don’t want to admit that they played a role in allowing the problem to happen and to grow to an enormous magnitude. That’s the root of generational warfare. Both sides know that something is wrong but they’d rather fight each other than admit their own roles in the problem rather then working to find the solution. Usually, the solution is fairly obvious (though maybe not easy to achieve) once you admit the actual problem instead of just trolling each other.
And the root of that is overt manipulation of the populace by government, media and education is something that has gone on for over a century. Something I allude to by pointing out that Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931. He wasn’t envisioning a future based on new manipulation tactics, he was just envisioning what would happen if you used the manipulation tactics already available in the previous decade, which the Soviets did, quite effectively, in the 1920’s.
Once you realize how such manipulations work you start to realize how you have to work within the system those manipulations have created in order to break the system.
Generally speaking, I’m pretty matter-of-fact about most things but if you’re looking closely at how I act right here on TTAG you’ll find that I’m actually pretty manipulative with some of the ways that I post here. I’m just honest enough to admit it. The manipulation gets me nothing in the immediate. I’m not doing it for funzies. My personal stake in the situation has to do with the threat I perceive in terms of social instability caused by the use of these manipulative tactics to enhance the wealth and power of certain groups. IMHO, it’s not good for anyone if shit breaks and our response is to hand even more power to the government over it in some sort of Reichstag Fire moment or a series of smaller “moments”. I note that this is what we HAVE done for many decades and that shit, IMHO, needs to stop 20 years ago because it’s horrifically corrosive.
And mostly the manipulations I prefer to use are negative. That is to say, things I don’t do. For example, I don’t ever put someone on blast if they’re not IN the thread. To me that’s the same as waiting for someone to walk away from a table and then talking shit about them. It’s vindictive, cowardly and self-defeating even if you’re absolutely correct in everything that you say. Mostly I’m not concerned about how I’m perceived in that regard, I honestly couldn’t give a fuck less what most of the people here think, I just know the behavior is self-defeating behavior so I don’t do it.
That said, I’m not going to lie to people. I firmly believe that the highest honor I can do you is to treat you like a goddamn adult and tell you the truth as best I know it regardless of how that makes you feel. I’d no sooner lie about this kind of thing than I would tell a schizophrenic that the drapes really are talking to them.
It is the fact that I have personally seen how this manipulation works on a personal level in my life and that I’m quite well aware of how I could use it for personal gain that results in my unwillingness to use it. This kind of thing is, IMHO, the MOST dangerous drug available to our species. It’s the drug of control that leads to the less potent but doubly reinforcing drug of power. The combination is the emotional and intellectual version of speedballs. Using such a drug is unwise. It is as close to The Ring of Power as our species can get IRL.
Sadly, destructive behavior will accelerate in our nation.
While celebrating Christmas with extended family, I spoke at length with an in-law who is a Special Education teacher. With respect to cognitive impairments, low I.Q., emotional problems (due to poor parenting), and outright mental illness, she laid out the developments of the last 50 years and our trajectory going forward. It is really ugly.
Just one tidbit from that conversation:
Going back about 50 years, our nation tended to secure/isolate or “fix” people with counterproductive or outright destructive behaviors. Most of the people with the most debilitating conditions would not have children and propagate their counterproductive or destructive lifestyles. Fast forward to today and we are now on the second generation of counterproductive or destructive people hooking up with other counterproductive or destructive people bringing children into the world–often in large numbers. This is rapidly accelerating the number of counterproductive and destructive people in our society. Making matters far worse, there is nothing in the works to adequately handle such people. That function has fallen, by default, onto Special Education programs in public schools and our prison system–neither of which are designed to educate, reform, and/or rehabilitate millions of people with intense counterproductive or destructive mindsets.
As you can hopefully imagine, this does not end well for our society.
They ran a simulation on what the future looks like. It’s called Idiocracy.
You can’t get up if you don’t fall down. Failure is a learning opportunity.
So yes, there is a very large danger presented in the current situation. But it’s also the greatest opportunity you can imagine if you’re willing to carpe those fuckin’ diems.
The overarching point of virtually everything I’ve ever said here is that you need to prepare yourself to seize those days. Most people currently alive were very specifically taught not to. But two quotes from the past century sum the situation up fairly nicely.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
and
“A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.”
You can heed both bits of advice with pretty simple steps that will shift your view of the world to a more realistic one. They all involve the same thing, a rejection of letting others curate information for you because it’s convenient.
The first order of business is breaking the (D) monopoly, not (just) because they’re Democrats but because in a one-party system, the ruling class can act with impunity, which somehow surprises all the New Yorkers, Chicagoans, and San Franciscans who voted for these clowns. The second order of business is getting armed and literally fighting back. Baseball bat, wasp spray, shotgun, whatever. Put enough “non-felons” in the morgue and maybe they’ll get the message. It sucks because we’re falling back into the world of Paul Kersey and Travis Bickle. I honestly don’t want that, and I *have not* been shipping bullets to my California friends who can’t get ammo for their recently acquired firearms.
They’ll have a monopoly over New York, California, etc. for the foreseeable future. Why do you think they’re changing election laws there? They’re strengthening their hold on power.
What we should do, is stop wasting resources on a losing battle. It’s past time for a tactical retreat. It wouldn’t take many people to leave and turn purple states red. We only win by picking our battles.
Dude,
As we ponder such questions and possible solutions, we have to think beyond the political positions of voters. We also have to think about who wins elections and how they win.
In other words it doesn’t matter if we can somehow persuade a lot more people (even a majority) in California to vote for conservative candidates if Progressive candidates still somehow win their elections (whether or not there is any fraud). And even if a politician attains office because he/she is publicly sympathetic to our causes, that is still a loss if a large donor can “buy-off” that politician at the expense of the public.
Thus, in the end, we have to face reality. If it is effectively impossible in a state to install politicians who will support policies which are good for the masses, then the next best thing is for the good people of that state to move to a state where the politicians will enact policies which are good for all. Of course that means turning purple states red as you stated.
Also, this should not be read as Republicans good, Democrats bad. I actually think most Republicans are bad. That’s why the primary vote is so important. I’d like to see the old “red” guard in exile. Sorry guys. A third party just isn’t realistic either. The infrastructure already exists. We just have to remake the party.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again — giving up on “blue America” is folly. Lots of people here wanted to give up on my home state after it went blue in 2013. In 3 days, we’ll have a new GOP governor, AG, and an AR-totin’ Lt.Gov. Eight years of Democrat dominance does not warrant an Afghanistan-style pull-out.
Second, trying to win elections in cities and blue states is not “wasting resources,” but an investment with a much longer horizon. We say Democrats don’t care about poor urbanites, but if we don’t run candidates, we obviously don’t care either. You win 0% of the battles you don’t fight.
Third, cities are the beating heart of our culture. Trends start there, not in Wyoming. Of course cities will always be more statist than the sticks, but if we give up on them, just as conservatives retreated from media, education and entertainment, then we cede the field without a fight. I would like to see a baseline of appreciation for our freedoms. It can be done, as when NYC got tired of living in an urban hellscape and elected Giuliani.
Finally, I find this attitude cowardly and indicative of how wimpy and comfort-seeking conservative Americans have become. Any time a bad gun law is passed anywhere, lots of folks here scream “Move!” If everyone had moved out of Texas when Beto was up in the polls, then he would be governor now and gun rights would be in the crapper. Stop retreating. Stop whining about how unfair the media is. Life’s a bitch. If you’re not fighting, you’re surrendering.
Virginia isn’t New York or California. I’m reminded of the phrase, “work smart, not hard.” Contrary to popular opinion, working hard doesn’t guarantee results. Working smart does.
It occurred to me that you misunderstood what I meant by tactical retreat. That doesn’t mean “move!” or “just leave!” It means instead of getting your butt kicked around, you retreat to a point where you have the advantage. I’m talking about strengthening purple and red states, and therefore not only controlling those states, but controlling national policy. What else happens when the good people leave? The neighborhood turns to shit. That would be an eye opening experience for the “well meaning” progressives.
That’s when the tide turns. You come back when you have the advantage. In order to get to that point, you have to stop the bleed. That means you have to fix the problems that are tearing this country apart before you think about retaking a place like California. Otherwise, the country will continue it’s decline while you’re wasting time fighting a losing battle.
Rokurota,
Regarding your proposed second order of business:
When I was a child, my father informed me that violent people, “only understand one language.” And that “language” is a violent forceful response to their aggression. Of course he was/is spot on.
This general idea was on my mind the last few days. What really rose to prominence in my mind is how passive and meek the masses are, whether we are talking about looming threats which are days or weeks away or even immediate danger. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we have to first educate the masses on the real potential for destructive attacks and then somehow instill courage and a fighting spirit.
What spurred me onto this trail of thought was the spree killer who attacked several students in a school in December. The second that he started attacking, there should have been a swarm of people rushing in to take him down–and hopefully beat him senseless after taking him down. If that was the default response, there would be far fewer attempted attacks, and a much lower casualty count.
I liken this to aircraft hijackings/attacks. Prior to the horrific September 11th terrorist attack where the terrorists took-over aircraft with box cutters, by default passengers were meek and compliant when such attacks occurred. After that attack, passengers by default immediately pounce on such attackers. Of course a few dumb attackers tried a couple more times after September 11th and were promptly incapacitated. Thanks to this new-ish mindset and word getting out, violent attackers do not even try to attack aircraft any more. We need the same thing to happen everywhere: EVERYONE fights back violently–immediately–against violent criminal attackers. While that would not entirely eliminate violent crime it would put a serious dent in it. If you don’t believe it, look at the crime rate in New York City immediately after Bernhard Goetz shot his four attackers.
“The second order of business is getting armed and literally fighting back.”
Against whom?
That’s the rub because when you realize the answer you will know why it doesn’t happen yet but is, in future, inevitable. And Conservatives ain’t gonna like the answer.
well put me in a round room a tell me there’s a penny in the corner.
“That’s the rub because when you realize the answer you will know why it doesn’t happen yet but is, in future, inevitable. And Conservatives ain’t gonna like the answer.”
more, they’ll call you raacist and anti-seemitic.
That’s the point when our brave leaders run and cower under the nearest table.
So, the republicans are changing election laws and making policy that will allow them to change the results of an election because they want free and fair elections? Those efforts are not a power grab? About that bridge I have for sale.
Straw man…That you Miner?
The voters in New York City have free will. And they can vote to destroy their own city. Just like they have voted to destroy their own cities in Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Detroit, Memphis, etc. Just as a drug user has free will to put poison in their body like heroin, cocaine, meth, or marijuana.
The question is how do the normal people who have self-control deal with this in the future??? And I think National divorce is a perfect solution.
And yes, I don’t think that these people who have no self-control, want a divorce. Because they want the resources of normal people who have self-control. Because deep down they know they’re incapable of running their world without the help of sober outsiders.
And keeping with this subject of crime and criminals this just came in on the news.
Dumb off duty Cop shows off in front of his girl friend and gets himself blown away by armed robbers proving that when you resist a robbery by drawing your own gun you are not likely to survive the encounter because the bad guy or guys already have “the drop” on you. In this case this Cop was really a Moron when he tried to take on 3 robbers all at once. You cannot get any dumber than that. Darwinism proved valid once again.
Next time you think “I am safer with a gun on me” think again, and look at real life, not rectum gas Far Right “blow them away” forums. It only works in the Dirty Harry Movies. “Do you fell lucky punk”? You probably will not be but the bad guy probably will be lucky.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/off-duty-lapd-officer-fatally-shot-while-house-hunting-with-girlfriend-police-say/ar-AASHxUA?ocid=U143DHP&li=BBnb7K
According to Kleck’s “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” – the leading authority on the subject of compliance and referenced by the DOJ:
1. Any form of resistance, except with firearm, carries with it an injury rate of 52%.
2. Resistance with a firearm carried with it the risk of injury of 17%, but use of a firearm early in an encounter carries with it a risk of injury of 6%.
Overall, in Kleck, you have a minimum of a 25% chance of being injured if you comply, but you are 4 time less likely to be injured if you have your firearm and are prepared to use it.
Take away here summary: compliance may still result in injury (which includes death), resistance without a firearm carries a 52% chance of injury (which includes death), resistance with a firearm lowers chance of injury (which includes death) to 17%, resistance with a firearm early in the encounter further lowers risk of injury (which includes death) to 6%
If you are armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 25%?
if you are not armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 52%?
Compliance or not, resistance or not – is not a decision one needs to make. The answer is already provided, non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury. But if you want, you can roll the dice and take the chance of being a good-n-dead witness.
because a person, police officer in this case, was not successful does not prove that when you resist a robbery by drawing your own gun you are not likely to survive the encounter. In fact you are more likely to survive the encounter, but sometimes like in about everything with life it might not work out that way.
You seem to not grasp the concept of ‘odds’ and ‘likely’ very well. With you its always basically proclaiming ‘its 100% fact that a person who resists will always die’. I can tell your simple math logic skills are non-existent and you were not able to see the very obvious flaws in the ‘Chicago’ ‘correlation equals causation’ studies. Once again, correlation DOES NOT equal causation and never has and can’t but here you are making the blunder of ‘correlation equals causation’ with your statements.
Oh yeah, dacian, you obviously did not read your own article very well. Notice the part where it says…
“The police officer had been looking at a home to buy with his girlfriend when the couple was approached by the alleged robbers, two of whom opened fire… Arroyos told his girlfriend to run and exchanged gunfire with the suspects, but was struck…
This was an attack, the robbers fired on them first and that means they were intending to wound or kill them. The officer had no other choice. He wasn’t “resisting” in a robbery. He was covering his girlfriends retreat so she could get away from the attacking threat.
You though, if it were a person close to you then you would probably run away and leave the other person standing there to be killed.
You’re an idiot. Go away … and get some damn reading comprehension skills.
and now you are thinking ‘they both could have run away’. Have you ever been under attack like this? I have, you do not turn and run away because if you do you will be shot in the back.
The bad guys were already firing at them and advancing on them, had they both run they both would have more than likely been shot in the back as the bad guys were intent upon wounding or killing them. When you turn and run under fire with the threat advancing on you at closer ranges like what happened here you get wounded or killed. Its better that you face and engage the threat by returning fire, its the best chance – it just did not work out for this officer who was out manned and out gunned and taken by surprise. The officer did what he should have done, he told his girlfriend to run and covered her retreat as long as he could – he knew the best chance for at least one of them to live was doing that.
Your article simply verify’s Kleck – one person was less likely to be injured due to the defensive gun use, the girlfriend.
You jumped to conclusions about what the article said. They did not record if anything was or was not said before the shooting started and history and commons sense (which you lack) tells us that in most robberies the robbers do not start shooting first but ask for money.
While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.
I have posted many links refuting your lies about being safer resisting with a gun. Below I will try and repost them without moderation hang ups.
While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html
Here is another very lengthy in depth study (not the Harvard).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Another
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html
you are so full of Shi% I can smell it from here.
@dacian.
Ever time you talk about not pulling your gunm I’m reminded of the time when my wife and I picked up a hitch hike who later on down the road started to pull a knife out and decided he’d rather walk then get shot.
Then there was the time late one night when I assisted a stranded motorist who’s friends came out from hiding and decided they’d just take my car.
Theres a few more incidents in my life when a gunm stopped a whole lot of bad going down for me.
So anyone preaching to me about gunms saving or not saving lives, dont worry about me, worry about yourself.
In each of those cases Possum the attacker was not armed with a firearm. I am telling you that if they had been armed with a gun and drawn down on you first the outcome probably would have been very different. Again more than one study has proven it.
two times both parties had gunms, I was just quicker in picking up on the what they was thinking and got to mine before they got to theirs.
I did get drawn down on once though, karate man kicked the gunm and the bullet just creased my head, I’ve got a little scar there now. Luckily the bullet hit the light in the room we were in and I crawled under the card table and out the door in the darkness. No it’s not a good idea to try a speed draw when someone has a gunm pointed at you. And I got lucky when I kicked the gunm. But if you pretty much kno your going to get shot , go for it, you might get lucky .
You do you and I’ll do me, we are not going to change each other’s opinions.
dacian, Again, you are lying. I read two of your “articles”. I say pure unadulterated horse pucky. In the second “article” the so called “research” fails to provide the questions that were asked of the “participants.” How many people were victims where the perpetrators had a gun and the victim did not? And of these how many people who were unarmed were either shot or killed? It also does not tell us how many people refused to participate in their “research”. In the first article, you are again twisting the message of the article to fit your anti-gun agenda. There are thousands of cases where guns were used and the victim was successful if thwarting the perpetrator without any injury.
quote—————- I picked up a hitch hike who later on down the road started to pull a knife ———-quote
So why did you now change this story to a gun?
Holy God, but you’re a disgusting specimen. Renfield pretending to be Dracula. How is it possible to be such a spineless lickspittle AND this stupid?
I did not change the story,?
The hitch hiker has nothing to do with the card game incident.
And the gunm that was pulled on me at that time was a flintlock pistol. I’m pretty certain the slight delay in the ignition is what saved the day, had it been a modern pistol I’d have probably got it right between the eyes.
Hey possum,
So you never considered playing dead?
No, flight
We only play dead when we get caught.
dacian, I see you are at it again. Clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point. No place in the article from MSN does it say that the officer was “showing off to his girl friend.” In other words as usual, you are lying. In fact, the officer told his girl friend to run while he held off the robbers.
As to being safer having a gun, his girl friend might well be dead if it were not for his heroism.
There is something drastically wrong with you.
It is also clear that you do not get the message. No one on this blog like you and your lies.
It is a condition known as cognitive dissonance. He refuses to believe anything outside his world view.
He got two of my dgu stories mixed up. One was a knife incident one was a gunm, where he came up with anything different I do not know. I thought I was pretty clear on that?
I might lie about the size of the fish I caught but not how I got out of a scrape.
Maybe someone needs to go all “law abiding citizen” on this fool.
Are there any NY’ers here? I’d be interested in knowing whether Hochul or her successor have the power to bring this Bragg guy down.
Unless there is an actual criminal investigation (or sufficiently outrageous sexual harassment accusation apparently) not in any legal method. We are stuck with whatever NYC votes for much as they are stuck with whatever NYS votes for. Had some hope it would be closer for Curtis but the election results were predictable.
This New York City district attorney is simply doing what the Libertarians have been asking for. You can argue about whether or not they support or don’t support using a gun to rob a store???
But it is a fact that Libertarians believe as this DA believes. That is if you steal the private property of a retail business that is okay with them. As long as it’s under $950 in value.
From 2014 Reason magazine
“The initiative changes the possession of most drugs, including cocaine and heroin, from a felony offense to a misdemeanor. Possession of certain, less common Schedule I and II substances (including LSD for some reason) will remain a felony offense. Certain property offenses such as shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing a bad check will all be considered misdemeanor offenses, as long as these crimes involve $950 or less.”
“The success of this measure indicates that sentencing reform is starting to become palatable to more than just libertarians, but the general public. Criminal justice reform is certainly an issue both Democrats and Republicans agree is going to play a central role in the 2016 presidential election. Let’s hope that what happened in California last night may be replicated elsewhere, either by legislators or voters themselves.”
https://reason.com/2014/11/05/california-voters-make-possession-of-mos/
edit
Liberals and the Left believe the same as Libertarians. The same as this DA. Because they all say the jails have to many people in them.
well not exactly. libertarians believe everything should be personal. the left believes everything should be theirs.
“libertarians believe everything should be personal.”
No they don’t. Libertarians do not believe that you should personally be able to use violent deadly force if necessary to protect your private property. However they are very comfortable with Law Enforcement using violent deadly force if necessary to protect government property.
It has never occurred to me before. So for the first time, I check out the comment section of this 2014 Reason magazine article. What were Libertarians saying about this article back when it came out in 2014???
And I’m not surprised what I found.
Most Libertarian commenters were accepting this law that allows drug addicts or non-drug addicts, to steal even more private property and still only be charged with a misdemeanor. And now in 2021, the police will not even respond to the call of a shoplifter.
And this was the goal of this Libertarian Liberal and Leftists law. To make stealing easier and more profitable for the thieves. Libertarians Liberals and the Left have never supported the concept of private property rights. The goal was to enable drug use.
btw
Do the people who support drug legalization laws ever read the fine print in the laws they support???
Like does the congress ever read the laws they support before they vote for them???
Here you can read the comments for yourself. Only a handful of them realized just how bad this law really was.
From 2014, with the comments.
https://reason.com/2014/11/05/california-voters-make-possession-of-mos/?comments=true#comments
And yes the voters in California have free will to vote for whomever or whatever they choose. Just as the voters in New York City have free will to vote for whatever district attorney they want. But the question is, what crisis should not be allowed to go to waste that the Libertarians want to take advantage of?
Because the passage of proposition 47 has created a crisis in the state of California.
I don’t know how many there are? But there are certainly Libertarians who believe it’s okay to steal.
Its psychology, you satiate the criminals with what they like until they dont wanna do it no more.
Things might get worse for awhile, but it should gradually taper off.
There are almost certainly multiple elected officials as well as higher education professionals that believe exactly that up here. With all the incentives we have provided the last two years I am amazed we do not have worse crime than we do.
“you satiate the criminals with what they like until they dont wanna do it no more”
but supported by endless unlimited welfare they’re producing avalanches of new criminals all the time. chicago has 40 year old geat grandmothers.
That’s good, it gives great grandma more time to teach the kids how to become productive members of society.
“Bragg had six months to prepare this thing — and ask friends, foes, legal advisers, and PR experts to give him confidential feedback. ‘You know, Alvin,’ they would likely have said, ‘people are going to interpret this is a “get-out-of-jail-free card” on all armed robberies where someone isn’t actually shot or killed, because that is exactly what it says.’”
and bragg would have said, “yep!”, and they would have laughed and all gone out for lunch.
this is all deliberate, pushed by people who mean to do exactly this. I know you’re all getting used to it, and establishing comradery by pointing it out to each other over and over again, but unless you do something, they’ll kiill your nation and then you. deliberately.
Alvin Brag to focus on the crime, in new york man, you waste your time doing that. Or no. And I’m? Still voting so can it.